Re: "like other editors" [was: Re: Poll about proposed change in DEL (aka Backspace) and Delete]

[Jeremiah Dodds <jeremiah.dodds@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:42 PM, ken <gebser@mousecar.com> wrote:
>
> Yet you believe those assumptions (which you've conveniently redacted out)
> were based on logic.

They were based on inference, yes. I didn't quote them, as they
weren't relevant to what I was replying to. I can't go edit the post I
made, nor would I, anyone is free to look at the threads history to
see them if they'd like.


>>> I not only was making it sound like that, that's exactly what I was
>>> saying.
>>>  And it was *all* that I was saying.  I said this because, in fact, two
>>> people posted in favor of the changes and for no other reason than the
>>> proposed changes complied with how 'modern editors' worked. Please
>>> re-read
>>> my original post and you'll see I already said this.
>>
>> What other people seem to understand is that when those other people
>> proposed that the changes be made because other editors have that
>> behavior, there was most likely an unstated assumption that the other
>> editors did so for a reason and that the suggestion was not merely one
>> of wanting to be part of the cool kids club.
>
> "there was most likely an unstated assumption..."?!  So you're saying that
> even though people didn't give another reason, you can imagine that they had
> one.

Yes, this is very common, especially in non-rigorous discussions like
the one they're having.
I don't feel that it's an improbable discussion, and I would hope that
if it was blatantly incorrect that there would be a slew of people
saying that that's not what they intended. Humans can be bad at
expressing all the necessary assumptive building blocks to a
conclusion, but hopefully do care about clarity.


>> Even if those particular people *were* just wanting to feel like they
>> were using an editor that "belonged", it would still be worth
>> considering the change *because* of the likelihood of there being a
>> reason other than being fashionable.
>
> Again, you're imagining people had another reason, even though they didn't
> give another reason.

I am in fact assuming people have additional reasons, although
unstated. I do this for a few reasons:

  1. It's very common.
  2. As you pointed out, making changes *just* to be like other
software is a bit silly.
  3. People often notice when many things do things similarly and feel
like there may be some merit to their methods.

>> .... that
>> principle also applies to trying not to surprise *new* users, which
>> the behavior does  for some.
>
> No it doesn't apply.  When you start to use new software, you should expect
> to have to learn it.  It's not a surprise if you don't yet know how to use
> it.  Or do you think it's a surprise that you might have to learn something?

I do not, and I agree that it doesn't apply when you start to use
*entirely new* software. I should clarify here -- if you're using your
first image editor, you should expect to have to learn many new
things. If you're using your tenth image editor, you will probably
have quite a bit of transferable knowledge from the first through
ninth that you learned. You should, of course, be fine with learning
new things, but it's not a one-sided argument. Software writers should
also be willing to make changes that are in line with behavior from
other software *in their category*, if there is merit to the behavior.

> You and I aren't married.

Could we be though? I think we'd make a great couple!